Ignita Veritas United (IVU) serves as the official intergovernmental organization (IGO) host institution providing supporting infrastructure to the autonomous Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) as the “High Court” for human rights and international law cases, and its companion Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) as the “Common Court” for civil litigation and commercial arbitration cases.
Both Justice Courts, as autonomous IGO Official Bodies operated by the Independent Judiciary Profession, are supported by infrastructure of IVU as the host institution, including the resources and capabilities of its official Think Tank, licensed Law Center and accredited Law Faculty.
All net proceeds from Court costs of the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) Government Court Division and the Arbitration Court (ACIJ) are used to fund the operations of the SCIJ Human Rights Court Division, through the Public Access to Justice Endowment (PAJE) Fund.
For the People of most countries in the world, there has not been any real international forum for an individual to uphold their human rights against a country which is violating those rights:
Generally, individuals of most countries have not had any international Court to turn to for enforcement of their human rights within their own country.
Furthermore, there has never been any international forum for citizens of one country to enforce their rights against infringement by a foreign country (outside of their regional treaty system, if any).
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) allows claims by individual persons or private entities only after “exhausting domestic remedies” in country courts. However, it is not a judicial body, and takes only “advisory” and mediation measures, lacking any enforcement mechanism.
The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ), often called “The Hague” and sometimes called “The World Court”, has jurisdiction only for countries to bring claims against other countries, and does not permit individuals nor organizations to file a claim against a country for human rights violations.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent treaty organization affiliated with the United Nations Security Council, has jurisdiction only for “war crimes” and related offenses, and is not a forum for any claims by individual victims of human rights violations in private cases.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), of the Council of Europe (COE) treaty organization, allows only EU citizens to file claims only on violations by EU countries (the Russian Federation is included), but only after “exhausting domestic remedies” in country courts.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), of the Organization of American States (OAS), theoretically allows citizens of any country to petition, but only on violations by South American countries, and only after “exhausting domestic remedies”. Another limitation is that claims must be referred to the Court either by a member country or through its Commission, which mostly takes only “advisory” and mediation measures.
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), of the African Union (AU), allows only citizens of African Union countries to file claims only on violations by African Union countries, but only against countries which have agreed to that “option”, and only after “exhausting domestic remedies”.
The Administrative Tribunal, of the United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO) in Geneva, applies human rights only indirectly, if relevant to labour disputes. It allows workers to file claims only on violations by their employer agency of a treaty member country, but only after “exhausting all internal procedures” of the agency.
All of these modern human rights and international law Courts are based upon the “treaty principle”, by which the Court is considered “created” by countries, and thus dependent on the treaty countries, who must agree to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Court.
While this “treaty-based” method allows for the easy creation and immediate official funding of a Court, it is severely limited by allowing countries to avoid its jurisdiction at their will and convenience.
Accordingly, these Courts are restricted by their own founding treaty charters, and seem designed to be mostly symbolic.
As a result, their only real purpose is apparently to give the People the mere illusion, and false hope, that some Court exists which could meaningfully intervene in human rights violations. However, that illusion is instantly dispelled by a rude awakening, the moment an individual actually needs to rely upon protections of one’s human rights.
Although the inherently self-limiting “treaty-based” formation is one way to establish a Court of international Justice, it is certainly not the only way.
Specific provisions of conventional international law fully authorize and empower a sovereign supra-governmental Court, operated by the Independent Judiciary Profession, to exercise universal jurisdiction over all matters of international law and human rights:
There is a recognized human right to “fair and equal access to Justice” for all people (2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 2(b), 3(c), 11(a), 12), with “access to Justice” provided through “accessible formal procedures” of “customary Justice” (1985 Justice for Crime and Abuse of Power, Articles 4, 5, 7).
Under the conventions, “Everyone is entitled” to the basic human right of access to Justice through an “independent” Court as an “international” institution (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28).
The Judiciary can establish an independent IGO Court, as “international cooperation” managed by “professional Judges”, having “exclusive authority”, without interference by any governments in its “judicial decisions” (1985 Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, Preamble: ¶1, ¶10, Articles 3, 4).
The independent Judiciary has the right, through an “intergovernmental organization” (IGO) “at the international level”, exercising “independent judicial authority”, of “professionally qualified” Judges, adjudicating human rights as an “international body” (1998 Declaration on Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 5, 9.2, 9.3(c), 9.4).
Only properly formed “international judicial organs” have “Universal Jurisdiction” over all countries, to provide a “judicial remedy”, being “other bodies” independent from government influence, having their own “international processes” (2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 4, 5, 12, 14).
These independent Judiciary authorities are “binding upon” all countries as a “recognized customary rule” under the 1969 Convention on Law of Treaties (Article 38).
This powerful combination of 23 sections from 6 major international law conventions (above), much overlooked and never before analyzed in context, was first identified as a working mechanism by Barristers of Magna Carta Bar Chambers (MCBC) in 2012.
These provisions establish the requirements which trigger conventional law authority for an independent Court to have Universal Jurisdiction with enforcement powers on a supra-governmental level:
Essentially, the Court must (1) be an inter-governmental organization (IGO) institution, (2) be chartered as independent from the influence of any particular government and thus truly international, (3) be established as representing the independent Judiciary Profession as an autonomous Court of Law, and (4) operate strictly in accordance with all details of the relevant body of conventional international law from which it derives automatic inherent authority.
Ignita Veritas United (IVU), from 2012 to 2016, applied the resources of the Law Centre (MCBC) and Law Faculty of its namesake University, supporting a multinational association of governmentally accredited international Judges, to develop the first real Human Rights Court in history to meet those codified criteria for supra-governmental Universal Jurisdiction with enforcement powers.
As a result, the needed International Court system was established as an autonomous official body of an intergovernmental organization (IGO) operated by the Independent Judiciary Profession.
IVU continues developing the infrastructure and expanding the capabilities of the Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ High Court), and its companion Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ Common Court), as priority non-profit humanitarian projects.
IVU continues working to open the Human Rights division of the SCIJ High Court to process claims from the general public as soon as possible, subject only to a sufficient endowment level of non-profit funding.
All countries, organizations and citizens, who value the Rule of Law and human rights, are encouraged to make fully tax deductible non-profit donations to this extremely important humanitarian project of global significance.
You cannot copy content of this page